Published June 18, 2025
The most famous Southern Baptist statesman of his generation, Adrian Rogers, remarked at the Southern Baptist Convention in 2002: “As the West goes, so goes the world. As America goes, so goes the West. As Christianity goes, so goes America. As evangelicals go, so goes Christianity. As Southern Baptists go, so go evangelicals.”
Rogers’s statement is not one of self-acclaimed hubris. With just under 13 million members and more than 45,000 churches, the Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest Protestant denomination (by far) and viewed by outside observers as the default barometer for American evangelicalism. One hopes that the Southern Baptist gestalt embraces Rogers’s axiom with sober responsibility in maintaining fidelity to Christ within American culture.
Although Southern Baptists are not commonly thought of as “elites,” if the culture were aware of the number of Southern Baptists in prominent positions throughout the United States, it might be surprised. Chiefly, though, given the size of the denomination, the educational influence of its seminaries, and the sprawling nationwide connections that comprise it, what happens among Southern Baptists is not limited to Southern Baptists alone. While Southern Baptist cooperation is formally for advancing the gospel, there are theological, cultural, and sociological consequences at stake in their decisions that make them, for better or worse (though hopefully more the former), a bellwether for American Protestantism.
Last week, the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention took place in Dallas, Texas. Meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, around 18,000 people, including 10,000 voting delegates from local churches (called Messengers), gathered for what amounted to a business meeting: hearing updates from our entities, celebrating the sending of missionaries, passing resolutions, approving budgets, electing convention officers, and approving nominations. But the annual meeting is not only a business meeting; it is, quite affectionately, a family reunion—a statement that is true regardless of our public infighting. The organizing logic of the Southern Baptist Convention is simple: We exist to pool resources to advance the gospel as Baptists. We are a missionary people. That’s really it. If we reduce the Southern Baptist Convention to the sum total of our fights, we’ll have missed the forest for the trees.
The consensus among the Messengers was that the Dallas meeting was relatively less tense compared to previous years. Every convention, nonetheless, is now marked by the anticipated controversies that will play out on the convention floor. Although space prevents a thorough explanation of each issue, controversies swirled around issues of financial transparency, the best way to implement the convention’s complementarian convictions in its governing documents, and a motion to abolish the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).
The first controversy relates to a movement that seeks to require our entities to practice some equivalent of Form 990 financial disclosures, the public IRS forms that provide financial insight into nonprofit organizations. The logic of proponents is simple: If Southern Baptists are funding the entities, Southern Baptists have a right to see the numbers. The argument is that bolstering transparency bolsters accountability, which bolsters trust. This is a reasonable argument, and Messengers can enact such reforms if they so choose, but this year, they declined by deferring to the current institutional practice of allowing the trustees of each entity (who are elected by the Messengers) to oversee each entity’s finances. There are also strong arguments against adopting such standards, including the potential to undermine our trustee system. The fact that Messengers declined this motion overwhelmingly does not imply that financial improprieties are occurring; it suggests that the Messenger body believes the benefits of retaining the current level of financial accountability outweigh the arguments for 990-like disclosure. I trust our current system, but I have friends of goodwill who see things differently.
The second controversy pertains to how best to reflect our complementarian convictions (regarding the distinct but complementary roles of men and women) in our governing documents. The proposed amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote for two consecutive years to be inserted into our governing documents, would stipulate that a church is not in friendly cooperation with the Convention if it employs female pastors. “Friendly cooperation” is Baptist-speak for the ability to “seat Messengers” and thus have voting eligibility. Despite a very strong majority, regrettably, the measure fell short of the necessary threshold. Its failure is not due to an insurgent feminism or egalitarianism within the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is a firmly complementarian convention, and the debate, as I understand it, is how best to enact our complementarian convictions. Though I find the defeat discouraging, if there is any egalitarian spirit trying to find a foothold in the convention, its proponents (whoever they are) would be more than wrong to read into the amendment’s defeat any momentum for egalitarianism.
The third controversy relates to the future of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (in full disclosure, I am a former full-time employee of the ERLC). For the second consecutive year, a vote to abolish the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has failed to reach the necessary majority. Nevertheless, with over 40 percent voting to eliminate the entity, the ERLC clearly has its work cut out for the commission to reestablish confidence with the Messengers.
An analysis of the annual meeting that focuses solely on controversy and overlooks areas of joyful consensus would be an incomplete analysis. I chaired this year’s Resolutions Committee, and we put forward a slate of resolutions that were overwhelmingly passed by the Messengers. One resolution in particular, “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,” was an omnibus resolution that sought to affirm biblical creation order and natural law at all the various intersections of cultural controversy. I find it a measure of great theological integrity that Messengers are wholly unified on matters of biblical ontology. The resolution gained considerable public notoriety for its desire to see Obergefell overturned on the tenth anniversary of its decision. Other resolutions of note pertained to the growing threat of online sports betting, banning pornography, and the moral evils and medical dangers of the chemical abortion pill. In a time of cultural chaos and institutional drift, the Convention spoke with remarkable clarity, unity, and courage. What’s more, there is no more joyful consensus at the Convention than when Southern Baptists solemnly celebrate the precious souls in our ranks who are being commissioned to be missionaries around the world.
The fact that Southern Baptists of different backgrounds can come together and pass such a strong affirmation of biblical clarity and creation order as the nation’s largest Protestant denomination should be a source of encouragement for broader Christendom.
It is inaccurate to understand the Southern Baptist Convention solely by examining its controversies. To the faithful Southern Baptist watching from afar, perhaps weary of public squabbles or institutional drama—do not lose heart. The work is not easy, and the way is not always clear, but I trust Southern Baptists to make the best decisions in the long term. But the cause remains just with a holy imperative: the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed to the nations. That the Southern Baptist Convention, with all its diversity and internal disagreements, can still unite around biblical fidelity and moral clarity is no small feat. It is a work of grace—and a witness to the broader church.
Southern Baptists may often find themselves contra mundum—opposed to the world’s rebellion. But that opposition is not rooted in belligerence or contempt. It is born of conviction and hope. Because we are, in truth, pro mundum—for the good of the world. Why? Because Christ died to save it.
EPPC Fellow Andrew T. Walker, Ph.D., researches and writes about the intersection of Christian ethics, public theology, and the moral principles that support civil society and sound government. A sought-after speaker and cultural commentator, Dr. Walker’s academic research interests and areas of expertise include natural law, human dignity, family stability, social conservatism, and church-state studies. The author or editor of more than ten books, he is passionate about helping Christians understand the moral demands of the gospel and their contributions to human flourishing and the common good. His most recent book, out in May 2021 from Brazos Press, is titled Liberty for All: Defending Everyone’s Religious Freedom in a Secular Age.
